HRDs are sometimes expected to present as politically and ideologically neutral, but they should not be seen as isolated from the context or the content of their work which is often intensely political in nature. The best way for states, businesses, and civil society alike to support HRDs is often to lend support to the content of their work.
Many HRDs work at the intersection of different agendas. Those who focus on land rights, climate, and the environment – including protecting the rights of Indigenous Peoples – face some of the most egregious repression from governments (sometimes together with corporations), especially when they stand in the way of powerful vested interests. Other HRDs are part of wider struggles for democracy, especially in contexts of authoritarian or military rule. HRDs also play a crucial role throughout cycles of conflict, and in the context of peace processes they can bring a victim-led approach and highlight the differentiated experiences of different groups.
The definition of an HRD is already therefore very broad. In some cases, even the individualised concept of an HRD is unhelpful. People living together under severe oppression are all HRDs insofar as they struggle collectively for a future in which their human rights can be realised.
Proposals for action:
- Governments seeking to support HRDs should acknowledge and lend support to full the breadth of human rights and the issues on which HRDs are focused. This includes areas such as economic and social rights, which have long been important in many countries of the so-called Global South but have historically been de-emphasised by many Western countries.
- In some cases, states and other human rights actors should acknowledge that whole communities are in need of protection or advocacy, rather than seeking to identify individual HRDs from among them. The concept of a HRD should be held lightly rather than with predefined expectations.